Excel Parking Claim Form - Defence for Review

Umkomaas

Fiortdunlop2020 said:

@Umkomaas I had assumed the charges referenced in the highlighted bit pertained to charges between excel and Savills not the motorists??

Also I believe so 

It's almost certain that there are no charges flowing from Savills to Excel. In virtually all cases PPCs provide their 'services' to landowners/managing agents free of charge, with motorist penalties all accruing to the parking firm. The foc nature of the business model is no doubt why the majority of landowners are falling over themselves to avail themselves of the opportunity of dancing with the devil their chosen PPC. 

Some car parks are so lucrative that PPCs actually pay the landowner to have free rein to harvest their car park - in the famous Barry Beavis case, it is reported that ParkingEye paid £1,000 per week to the landowner for the licence to 'farm' that one car park!

Fiortdunlop2020

Good Evening so latest update...

Today I received
a) N157 (Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing) whereby on 17th August Deputy District Judge Griffths ordered claim (Second Claim) is allocated to the Small Claims Track and parties must send copies of WS to court and each other no later than 28 days before the final hearing
b) Notice of Trail Date (Second Claim) 8th October. Which is now a telephone hearing!

I am astounded by this:
1) Because it takes no consideration on Order by District Judge Fellows when I attended Court 26th and he deferred 1st Claim due to consolidation of both claims
2) It gives me 2 days (Until Friday 11th Sep) to file WS, which is ok because I intend to reuse the WS I filed for first Claim, but if I had not had this I would be pressed to file.

I intend to email court and make them aware that the claims should be consolidated as instructed by Deputy District Judge Fellows.

Any other advise appreciated.

Thanks

KeithP

Fiortdunlop2020 said:

I intend to email court and make them aware that the claims should be consolidated as instructed by Deputy District Judge Fellows.

Any other advise appreciated.

Phone the court as well. You may not get an email response for days - if not weeks.

Coupon-mad

Also, don't miss out on your revenge because your voice is vital this month:

Please now make a real difference - A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER.

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

At the very least, we say the parking charge level should be £50/£25 or higher level £70/£35, as per Council PCNs in E&W.  

And we say the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters, and MUST GO because that is unfair and illegal.

Please be heard.  You can bet the hundreds of PPCs will be commenting.

No apologies for repeating this vital 'call for action' to consumers, on every thread this month!

Fiortdunlop2020

Good afternoon 
So quick update will post full debrief this evening
Telephone hearing today . DCBL didn’t join call case struck out . Primarily as result of failure for representation at hearing. But acknowledged abuse of process on 2 counts cause of action estoppel and £60 Additional costs. Awarded costs not full amount raised.

Best Regards

Le_Kirk

Excellent, look forward to full "court" report.

Umkomaas

Nice one. 🥂 Hear from you later. 

Snakes_Belly

Well done, Another loss for Excel.

nosferatu1001

Well done
Shame "not turning up" is "reasonable" !

Fiortdunlop2020

Good Evening 
Telephone hearing @ 11:30 today. Had confirmation prior (after emailing the court) that the consolidated trial would be 1.5 hours and not 3 hours as Ordered at hearing on 26th Aug. 
Deputy District Judge (DDJ) Mitchell attempted to dial in the DCB Legal representative, which went to switchboard and after asking for representative was put on hold to pop song (what a farce). Eventually a colleague of representative answered and after looking up Claim advised Excel had advised to stand-down as handling in-house. The DDJ then advised no point DCB Legal joining hearing as no longer instructed and would proceed without Claimant.

DDJ went through guidance of telephone hearings and that this is same as appearing in person and would be recorded etc etc.

I advised I hadn't received WS for second claim, but DDJ said the WS from First Claim was sufficient (but I question in my mind,  if I had not filed second WS would I have been in breach of N157 Order?)

DDJ highlighted that appropriate abuse of process as two sets of proceedings for same reasons. No reason for appropriateness, furthermore they have proceeded.......Therefore striking out under CPR 3.4.

He questioned me about the parking arrangements was it residential, I advised no for work (was highlighted in WS) and assumed at first the two claims were for same incident but I highlighted it was for two separate incidents one month apart. Looking at the photographic evidence of car advised I was over line (he was looking at Claimants photographic evidence). I said if you look at my photographic evidence in my WS was online, he advised over so I said no more. He advised on two separate occassions I had parked over line, I informed I was unaware signs were vague, but he questioned fact I been parking there for work and not noticed signs (parking outside of bay). I genuinely didn't as I was paying in a carpark at place where I was working. This lead to implication that was breach of contract but DDJ stated what loss has been suffered as breach of contact (as was an end bay).

DDJ advised was aware of cases highlighted Southampton, Skipton & Warwick.
Stated Strike out not final & Claimant could re-apply but would have to explain no show.
Again highlighted abuse as two claims and should have consolidated with first claim. Second issue £60 additional fee and District Judges aware of whole claim (assumed by myself to be PoFA 2012 S4), highlighted "tainted to the core" the application of this additional amount.

DDJ then mentioned CPR Part 27 14 Unreasonable conduct and could award costs, asked if costs from 26th Aug been included. I advised that Order from 26th Aug instructed "costs of case on 26th be in the case". He found paperwork and agreed. 

DDJ proceeded to Order:
1) One set of proceedings should have been followed.
2) Failure to appear on hearing today and no instruction to advise of DCB Legal being stood down.
3) Defence, additional charges of £60 'Admin Fee' find unreasonable behaviour
4) Route of claim suspect no demonstrable loss as result of way vechicle parked.
Concluded unreasonable behaviour primarily failing to attend hearing today.

DDJ turned to costs asked if had to book two days off work, I advised I did for first hearing but not for today as telephone hearing and took extended lunch for hearing, so he awarded full Oridnary Costs of £126.90 (Loss of earning = £95 + Mileage £27.90 + Parking £4). On the further costs I had submitted £437 based on 23 hours LiP. I personally believe he was conscious of precedent so said £200 sufficient so total of £326.90. Personally I believe the £437 was not excessive as two Claims.

Closed call by advising that the Claimant could set aside this order under Part 39 (3) CPR but would have to pay cost of application and have sufficient reason for not attending.
Rather detailed and scattered report but have provided flow of hearing. Personally believe the determination is rather fluid and question how much is determined pre hearing and depends how the flow of hearing goes. 
Regards ...  I will follow up with a thank you email, in meantime cheers and thanks